CAR-T(CAR-T)细胞疗法在非肿瘤性疾病中的应用
Chimeric antigen receptor T (CAR-T) cell therapy in non-oncological diseases.
CAR-T(CAR-T)细胞在血液系统恶性肿瘤中的应用推动了这种免疫治疗形式的显著进展。
CELL INTELLIGENCE · 肿瘤细胞治疗研究
肿瘤细胞治疗研究
英文原题:Real-World Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring During Intensive Hematological Care: A Prospective Study.
Real-World Accuracy of Continuous Glucose Monitoring During Intensive Hematological Care: A Prospective Study.
分数与星级只用于站内排序 —— 不代表疗效、安全性或个人适用性。
接受血液系统恶性肿瘤治疗的患者易发生高血糖,这可能对治疗结局产生负面影响。因此,密切监测血糖水平至关重要。数据显示,与连续血糖监测(CGM)相比,毛细血管测量方法会低估高血糖事件的发生。然而,CGM在强化血液学治疗期间以及相关代谢和止血失衡情况下的准确性尚不清楚,本研究旨在对此进行探讨。
本分析使用了在一项前瞻性研究中收集的数据,该研究比较了CGM与毛细血管即时检验(POC)血糖测量在因强化血液学治疗住院的成人患者中的表现,这些患者接受了三种不同的治疗方式,即CAR-T 细胞治疗、异基因干细胞移植(allo-SCT)或自体干细胞移植(auto-SCT)。POC和CGM测量同时进行。准确性通过平均和中位绝对相对差(MARD)、糖尿病技术学会(DTS)误差网格分析以及落在15%/15、20%/20和30%/30 mg/dL范围内的数值百分比进行评估。
共纳入60例患者(28%为女性,中位年龄64 [58-68]岁,10%有糖尿病病史),产生了1999对匹配测量值。总体平均ARD为21.5%,其中allo-SCT期间平均ARD最低(18.3%),auto-SCT期间平均ARD最高(27.1%)。落在15%/15、20%/20和30%/30 mg/dL一致范围内的血糖值百分比分别为38.1%、51.1%和75.1%。DTS误差网格分析显示临床准确性良好,99.6%的配对位于A+B区。
尽管MARD相对较高,但使用CGM不太可能导致有害的胰岛素给药错误,并且在强化血液学治疗期间似乎是可行的。
Background: Patients treated for a hematological malignancy are susceptible to hyperglycemia, which can negatively affect treatment outcomes.
Therefore, close monitoring of glucose levels is crucial. Data demonstrated that capillary measurement methods underreport hyperglycemic episodes compared with continuous glucose monitoring (CGM).
However, the accuracy of CGM during intensive hematological treatments, and the associated metabolic and hemostatic imbalances, is unknown, which we aim to investigate in the current study. Methods: For the analysis, data collected during a prospective study that compared CGM with capillary point-of-care (POC) glucose measurements in adult patients hospitalized for intensive hematological care with three different treatment modalities, namely chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy, allogeneic stem cell transplantation (allo-SCT), or autologous stem cell transplantation (auto-SCT), were used. POC and CGM measurements were performed concurrently. Accuracy was assessed using mean and median absolute relative difference (MARD), Diabetes Technology Society (DTS) Error Grid analysis as well as percentages of values within 15%/15, 20%/20, and 30%/30 mg/dL.
Results: A total of 60 patients (28% female, median age 64 [58-68] years and 10% with a history of diabetes mellitus) were included, yielding 1999 matched measurement pairs. The overall mean ARD was 21. 5%, whereby the lowest mean ARD was observed during allo-SCT (18. 3%) and the highest mean ARD during auto-SCT (27. 1%).
The percentages of glucose values within 15%/15, 20%/20, and 30%/30 mg/dL agreements were 38. 1%, 51. 1%, and 75. 1%. The DTS Error Grid analysis showed good clinical accuracy with 99. 6% of pairs within zone A + B. Conclusions: Despite the relative high MARD, the use of CGM is unlikely to result in harmful insulin dosing errors and seems feasible to use during intensive hematological care.
MEMBER ACCOUNT
登录成功会直接打开下一页。